IMPORTANT-You are about to LOSE RIGHTS!!!!!
Printed From: Pixel Joint
Category: The Lounge
Forum Name: Diversions
Forum Discription: Get to know your fellow pixel freaks. Chat about anything to do with video games, comic books, anime, movies, television, books, music, sports or any other off topic bs you can think of.
URL: https://pixeljoint.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=7655
Printed Date: 09 September 2025 at 9:28pm
Topic: IMPORTANT-You are about to LOSE RIGHTS!!!!!
Posted By: DrNova
Subject: IMPORTANT-You are about to LOSE RIGHTS!!!!!
Date Posted: 06 January 2009 at 10:26am
|
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=CqBZd0cP5Yc - http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=CqBZd0cP5Yc All artists on here in the USA MUST WATCH THIS Congress is currently working to pass the ORPHAN RIGHTS bill. What this will mean, is when you create artwork, unless you PAY TO OWN IT, you have no rights to it. Currently, when you create something, you automatically have copyright rights to your created works. This bill would make it PUBLIC PROPERTY for ANYONE to use, unless you paid for and registered every peice of art you produce. Please check out the video, and spread the word to all other art commnities you know, this is a terrible bill trying to steal your private works of art. It needs to be stopped |
Replies:
Posted By: Arylic
Date Posted: 06 January 2009 at 5:12pm
| Thank god we are not in the usa. |
Posted By: Larwick
Date Posted: 06 January 2009 at 6:19pm
|
They can't seriously get that passed.
-------------  http://larw-ck.deviantart.com">
|
Posted By: jeremy
Date Posted: 06 January 2009 at 10:55pm
Does this mean that if someone in another country makes something someone in the USA can rip it? 
|
Posted By: tuaarita
Date Posted: 07 January 2009 at 2:12am
|
Originally posted by Jeremy
Does this mean that if someone in another country makes something someone in the USA can rip it? Art made by people outside USA still have the rights to their stuff.
Art made by people in USA don't have rights to their stuff, in other words..
I WILL STEAL YOOR PIXELS  if you live in USA------------- I'm running in the desert, running in to the sun, running out of blood and I'm going numb. |
Posted By: Metaru
Date Posted: 09 January 2009 at 5:44pm
|
havent we talk about the orphan bill a while ago? didn't it started because http://mag.awn.com/index.php?ltype=Columns&column=MindBiz&article_no=3605 - a columnist set the bomb on this subject with a lot of biased, misreaded information and then http://firefox.org/news/articles/1396/1/Editorial-Calling-All-Orphans-The-So-Called-quotOrphan-Worksquot-Bill-and-You/Page1.html - got bashed to the ashes for this ? correct me if i'm wrong, but again, feels like someone randomly reads a header and spreads the hysteria across the world w/o a clue of what they are talking about expecting to be a robin hood of the internets. not to mention its aimed to people who makes a living of their art, not to STEAL JOO PIXELZ ------------- I ate leel's babies |
Posted By: Larwick
Date Posted: 09 January 2009 at 6:04pm
|
Yeah, what Metaru says makes much more sense.
------------- http://larw-ck.deviantart.com">
|
Posted By: Metaru
Date Posted: 09 January 2009 at 6:09pm
|
Your furry pixeled kingdom hearts fan arts wont get stole by evil corporative stealing machines. not even Google Spiderbots wants to steal them. ------------- I ate leel's babies |
Posted By: greenraven
Date Posted: 10 January 2009 at 5:57pm
|
Originally posted by Larwick They can't seriously get that passed. Clearly you are not familiar with http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/illinois - stupidity of the American legislation system . (These are all real laws by the way.) -------------  "pwnage comes with patience, practice and planning." ~ Jalonso 
|
Posted By: Larwick
Date Posted: 10 January 2009 at 8:39pm
|
Yeah but they're not new laws, they're old forgotten ones... ...aren't they? ------------- http://larw-ck.deviantart.com">
|
Posted By: Metaru
Date Posted: 10 January 2009 at 9:05pm
|
OMG A LAW TO STEAL MY PIXELS I MUST SPREAD THE WORD I MUST SAVE SARAH CONNOR AGAIN ------------- I ate leel's babies |
Posted By: Hapiel
Date Posted: 11 January 2009 at 4:24am
|
Lets go do creative commons guys :)
------------- |
Posted By: greenraven
Date Posted: 11 January 2009 at 6:57am
|
Originally posted by Larwick Yeah but they're not new laws, they're old forgotten ones... ...aren't they? No, not exactly. Not sure how things work on the other side of the world, but around here cops have a monthly quota to meet. Every month they have X number of tickets/citations/fines/what ever you want to call them to give out. (Police work is a monetary business like any other in this greedy country.) At the end of each month if the cop hasn't met his quota for the month they start arresting people for these old bullsh*t laws. I once saw someone get pulled over by a cop because his bumper was an inch over the line. AN INCH!  edit: Let me just put it this way...  http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1865781,00.html - This is the governor of my state . (As an interesting side-note: The last 4 governors of Illinois have all been arrested for one reason or another. Isn't America grand?  )------------- "pwnage comes with patience, practice and planning." ~ Jalonso
|
Posted By: Hapiel
Date Posted: 11 January 2009 at 10:22am
|
I prefer Holland. Relieable No messing with my rights as artist We sold the big brother concept and got rich, whitout having to watch that silly show ourselfs What better country can there be? ------------- |
Posted By: Larwick
Date Posted: 11 January 2009 at 10:31am
|
Greenraven that's so gay garr. Yeah, Holland's pretty good. ------------- http://larw-ck.deviantart.com">
|
Posted By: Evilagram
Date Posted: 20 January 2009 at 9:06am
|
Hahahaha! I have a colored history with copyright laws. On one hand, I love the digital millenium copyright act for the rights guaranteed to artists. On the other, I'm an avid pirate (moral pirate, if I like it, I buy it).
This bill is an affront to both me as artist and pirate. What it means is more bullsh*t regulations surrounding copyright law and piracy. And it means more art thieves getting away with faulty copyright laws.
Basically, the big names get their work protected better than the already ludicrous standards, the little names suffer at the hand of no protection.
The law is absurd. Hopefully our senators aren't damn stupid.
|
Posted By: greenraven
Date Posted: 20 January 2009 at 9:43am
|
Originally posted by Evilagram The law is absurd. Hopefully our senators aren't damn stupid. It's so refreshing to meet someone who still has faith in our duly appointed representatives. Give it time, you'll bow your head in shame like the rest of us soon enough.  ------------- "pwnage comes with patience, practice and planning." ~ Jalonso
|
Posted By: Evilagram
Date Posted: 20 January 2009 at 11:23am
|
Originally posted by greenraven
Originally posted by Evilagram The law is absurd. Hopefully our senators aren't damn stupid. It's so refreshing to meet someone who still has faith in our duly appointed representatives. Give it time, you'll bow your head in shame like the rest of us soon enough. I guess I've seen one too many Obama speeches.
Regardless, the digital millenium copyright act is hailed as the tool of free expression among politicians. The likelyhood that they'd change it is slim.
|
Posted By: wishuponapixel
Date Posted: 20 January 2009 at 11:54am
|
I remember the incident on DA about the orphan rights >_> I think this is manly for the libraries that have really old images and documents and can't get the copyrights to publish these images/documents into their libraries. They probably don't know who the creator is because they may be deceased or unknown and thus can't get the copyrights. Once you begin/finish and artwork, it is protected and copyrighted. I don't think the orphan rights is trying to take that away. |
Posted By: Evilagram
Date Posted: 20 January 2009 at 12:12pm
|
Originally posted by wish04 You do know that copyrights expire 70 years after the longest living owner's death, right?I think this is manly for the libraries that have really old images and documents and can't get the copyrights to publish these images/documents into their libraries. They probably don't know who the creator is because they may be deceased or unknown and thus can't get the copyrights Also, if there's no copyright symbol and it was published before 1963 then it's public domain. If the OP is correct, then yes, I do believe that this would take away your rights, effectively making copyright like trademark, except with even less protection. |
Posted By: wishuponapixel
Date Posted: 20 January 2009 at 12:42pm
|
Hmm.... I didn't know that copyrights could be expired. After looking at the copyright website, it's when the copyright owner can not be identified or located. http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/ - http://www.copyright.gov/orphan http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat031308.html - Orphan works proposed in Mar. 2008 |
Posted By: Metaru
Date Posted: 20 January 2009 at 3:27pm
|
Originally posted by Evilagram You do know that copyrights expire 70 years after the longest living owner's death, right? Also, if there's no copyright symbol and it was published before 1963 then it's public domain. If the OP is correct, then yes, I do believe that this would take away your rights, effectively making copyright like trademark, except with even less protection. again, no one wants to claim your sh*t. no one will, so dont worry. period. ------------- I ate leel's babies |
Posted By: Evilagram
Date Posted: 20 January 2009 at 5:21pm
|
Originally posted by Metaru again, no one wants to claim your sh*t. no one will, so dont worry. period. It doesn't matter whether anyone will try claiming my sh*t, what matters is that I have the right to protect my sh*t. You aren't exactly in on the whole "liberty" thing are you? |
Posted By: skooba-dude
Date Posted: 20 January 2009 at 6:03pm
|
Well, I'm just glad I live in AUstralia, that way, no one can ever claim my sh*t, as long as we got dork kevin, he loves pixel art platform games....
ok I just made that up, so what! ------------- 
|
Posted By: blue
Date Posted: 20 January 2009 at 6:57pm
|
Yes; this was pretty hugely blown out of proportion by various spazzy, well-known artists on dA...the definition of 'orphaned works' is actually extremely detailed and even includes a clause for if the original artist comes forward later. It's really not that bad. >.< Flawed, maybe, but modern copyright law is so f**ked as it is that it really needs an update. I think that a little tweaking would make this a fabulous solution, protecting artist rights while also defining 'public domain' a bit better, and protecting people who have put forth an honest effort [defined in the bill!] to find the original creator before using artwork... |
Posted By: greenraven
Date Posted: 21 January 2009 at 6:41am
|
Originally posted by Evilagram You aren't exactly in on the whole "liberty" thing are you? Don't worry about Met, he's just having a little fun at our expense. He lives all the way down in Chile, so doesn't really need to concern himself with our liberties.  ------------- "pwnage comes with patience, practice and planning." ~ Jalonso
|
Posted By: Evilagram
Date Posted: 21 January 2009 at 10:10am
|
Originally posted by blue
Yes; this was pretty hugely blown out of proportion by various spazzy, well-known artists on dA...the definition of 'orphaned works' is actually extremely detailed and even includes a clause for if the original artist comes forward later. It's really not that bad. >.< Let me be the first to say that I really don't like deviantart.
I'm also going to say that I don't think that this really can be blown out of proportion. You are effectively losing rights to every single thing you make from now on. Sure they can't retroactively grab your stuff before the bill is passed, but it's still bullsh*t. For the sake of every person who makes a living with art, this bill MUST NOT BE PASSED.
Originally posted by blue Flawed, maybe, but modern copyright law is so f**ked as it is that it really needs an update. I think that a little tweaking would make this a fabulous solution, protecting artist rights while also defining 'public domain' a bit better, and protecting people who have put forth an honest effort [defined in the bill!] to find the original creator before using artwork... Contrastingly I personally love the current state of copyright.
The way things are now, an artist can make a work and is granted every right to it. From there he can instate license law, abridging his rights to a piece in order for it to be used the way he wants.
Creative Commons isn't a set of laws, it's a set of licenses, all written out for anyone to pick up.
What I disagree with in modern copyright is the rights of the users or licensees to modify and distribute copyrighted works.
Okay, maybe not the modification part because that leads to sh*tloads of sonic recolors.
However I think that certain licenses should be automatically applied to works reaching "massive" publication. Licenses allowing more free use of the work. Politicians would never approve of it though. It makes piracy too easy, and helping piracy is political suicide.
A more feasible solution however would be to impose a tax on internet access that covers piracy. The funds collected from said tax would be distributed to the artists based upon statistics collected about how much their works are pirated.
This would effectively legalize piracy, offering a solution that helps both the artist, and the pirates.
|
Posted By: blue
Date Posted: 21 January 2009 at 11:49am
|
Evilagram, I might suggest actually reading the official, full text of the bill, instead of lifting what it says out of other peoples' interpretations. Nothing in it says anyone will 'lose the rights to their work' unless they have literally abandoned them, and there is no way to get in contact with them, after a fairly extensive search. You can be emphatic as you like, repeating over and over that 'we WILL lose our work!!!' but it's just plain not true. (; The bill is flawed, but you should read it before talking about it. |
Posted By: Evilagram
Date Posted: 21 January 2009 at 3:43pm
|
Originally posted by blue Evilagram, I might suggest actually reading the official, full text of the bill, instead of lifting what it says out of other peoples' interpretations. Nothing in it says anyone will 'lose the rights to their work' unless they have literally abandoned them, and there is no way to get in contact with them, after a fairly extensive search. You can be emphatic as you like, repeating over and over that 'we WILL lose our work!!!' but it's just plain not true. (; The bill is flawed, but you should read it before talking about it. Then what the hell does paying for your copyrights have to do with abandoned works? Anyway, my entire argument is based off secondary sources. I'll try reading the actual thing when I get a chance. |
Posted By: sharprm
Date Posted: 19 February 2009 at 4:10am
|
Isn't fairly extensive search something open to abuse. If I liked metaru's signature and wanted it on a t-shirt and didn't want to pay metaru any money, then couldn't i post metaru signature in a forum under someone else's name (eg. fakename). And in a court, if I can show that I tried reasonably hard to contact fakename, the damages I pay metaru are much smaller than with previous legislation. Is metaru's work covered by international copyright law or something? Would he be able to sue someone in america using international copyright law or is he only able to use american law? How long before international law is changed? I don't think it is just spazzy DA people worried. This guy is smart and talented and he is worried: http://www.tomrichmond.com/blog/2008/04/25/orphan-works-bill-due-this-week/ Also, didn't conceptart.org make a special registry to make it harder for people to steal works under the orphan works act? Why would they spend time/money unless they had legitimate concerns. Check out the 'alex - the issue is extreme'. http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/392 There was also a post somewhere which i can't find which described how a newspaper stole someone's cartoon. Under the previous copyright legislation, he threated to sue them for large amounts (eg. legal fees, pulping etc.). Initially they told him to get stuffed. After he threatened to sue however, they were so scared about losing all that money they paid him a lot and agreed to buy his cartoons regularly. Sorry I only have vague details but the point is that someone familiar with using the existing legislation thought a 'good' outcome from his perspective couldn't be achieved with the new orphan works bill. The orphan bill intro mentions statutory damages can be 30,000-150,000$. This is the stick. If you want people to do the right thing, carrot and stick. Orphan works removes statutory damages (replaces with reasonable compensation - no reimbursement for legal fees) so there is no stick. I'm no expert but I think 'blue' should explain why this change is a good thing for artists (screw libraries and documentary film makers) since he says it's 'not so bad'. edit: I would consider this legislation to be a good idea is if there is a search engine that can scan the internet and match up a photo with any other photo. I've heard this mentioned a bit does anyone know of an example that is up and running? Also, as with metaru signature scam, i could print the image, scan it, rotate it so that it doesnt match using the engine ... also what if I got fakename to sign a NDA could I say that further searching is unreasonable? Also does anyone think these mom and pop trying to repair their wedding photos stories are half truths - spin - crapola? edit2: I'm not a professional artist, probably no-ones wants to rip off my stuff but STILL this change seems wrong. Its best summed up by this quote: "Despite 127 pages of the Orphan Works Report, you need only common sense to tell you this: The primary goal of copyright law is not to make creators’ work available to others. If it were, there’d be no need for copyright law at all: everything would be free for anyone to use. Copyright law exists primarily to protect the property rights of creators and secondarily, to extend the benefits of the creator’s work to the public. It does this by defining specific, limited exceptions to the creator’s exclusive license. In doing so, the law promotes the useful arts and provides certainty to users and creators alike. Invert the law and you invert the only way it can benefit society." http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topics/article.php?searchterm=00264 |
Posted By: Vectomon
Date Posted: 06 July 2009 at 4:16pm
|
Sure, in my country you have 58% chance that you will get robbed everytime you leave your house, but there's nobody messing with art copyrights. Yet. |
Posted By: MrSmiley
Date Posted: 17 July 2009 at 7:09am
| No, it means just the opposite. |
Posted By: NotlikeTheOther
Date Posted: 17 July 2009 at 8:42am
|
All I gotta say is good thing my art sucks so bad no one would steal it!
Too bad our government won't focus on "real" issues and quit wasting our money...  ------------- Polly Pickle |
Posted By: noasart
Date Posted: 25 July 2009 at 2:10am
|
Countries like France, Holland etc have produced high quality art and protected artists. A comparison should be made rather than conjectural thinking. |
Posted By: KrunchyWaffle
Date Posted: 25 July 2009 at 1:51pm
| Wow! What exactly is the government thinking? I don't live in the USA and I know that this is just wrong. I mean paying for your own artwork doesn't sound quite right. I hope this bill does not get passed. |